Fracking is a process by which primarily natural gas is extracted by means of fracturing rock through the use of highly pressurized water, sand, and chemicals. A list of some of the chemicals most often used in fracking includes:
Benzine
Diesel Fuel
Formaldehyde
Hydrogen Flouride
Lead
Methanol
Sulfuric Acid
Toluene
Xyline
This website gives a good explanation of the fracking process in an rather creative, illustrated, and interactive way. (Scroll down the page slowly.)
Major gas companies have been busy for some time now extolling its benefits, exploiting unemployment, the economy, and the environment. There have been commercials like these:
Oil sands, or tar sands, are comprised of sand, water, clay, and a thick
oil known as bitumen.
Tar sands have to be mined and then the bitumen
needs to be separated from the earthly mixture before it is refined into
oil. There has been much debate about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. A recent U.S. State Department report concluded there would be little environmental impact from the tar sands mining. However, a University of Toronto study concludes such would not be the case. Many environmentalists agree.The Keystone XL pipeline would be used in the export of tar sands from Canada to the United States.
In addition to natural gas, fracking would also be used for tar sands extraction. There are serious risks with this pursuit of natural gas and tar sands. One is the poisoning of water supplies near fracking sites. As the rock is pressured to crack by the mixture of water, sand, and chemicals, naturally occurring gases, such as methane, can not only escape into the atmosphere, but also seep into natural water supplies. Another side effect, earthquakes, can result from the shifting of underground plates.
I implore you to take the time to watch the following videos about fracking and its effects:
I can speak from a personal experience on this matter. A couple of years ago, we experienced a rarity here in New Jersey, an earthquake. A fracking operation down in Virginia had been operational for a while. It is believed that, due to its operation, an earthquake was felt down south as far as the Carolinas, as far west as Illinois, and as far north as eastern Canada. Unlike California, which sits on several fractured plates after decades of seismic activity, the eastern part of the United States sits on one plate due to the far less amount of seismic activity. Thus, an earthquake in one town in California may not be felt in another town that sits on a separate plate. Cause an earthquake in an area that is one large plate and it will be felt in a much larger area.
We did not experience any water contamination, obviously because of the distance from the fracking site and where we live, but the earthquake was enough of a wake-up call. That, in addition to earthquakes in Kansas, Ohio, and Texas that appear to be likely caused by fracking, is enough for me to oppose the practice of hydraulic fracturing.
Another issue about fracking regarding water, aside from contamination, has been raised in a recent report by the Ceres corporation, an advocacy group for energy sustainability. In the report, areas suffering from drought are experiencing even lower water levels due to fracking.
In my opinion, all of this talk about jobs, economy, and the availability of natural gas are merely smoke screens. Do we need more jobs in the U.S.? Yes. Does our economy need improvement? Yes. The question, however, is whether earthquakes, contaminated water supplies, and unnaturally depleted water supplies are acceptable risks. My answer is a resounding no.
To parts of the U.S. and other parts of this world where fracking is, or is about to, get under way, or where it is being considered, I urge you to make your answer a resounding no as well, and let your representatives hear from you!
Terry
No comments:
Post a Comment